See likes

See likes given/taken

Your posts liked by others

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Post info No. of Likes
Re: New Symbol This is a very nice symbol. I like it on all levels. It is nice to see a LHP group that is not a revival or "competitor" but opened to all who wish to join. Thank you for the effort that you have put into this. I also am glad to see a forum with a like button. Good job on everything. I will be looking around.
July 09, 2017, 10:54:01 am
Re: The history of the Sigil of Baphomet I have seen the Stanislas verison with the Sammael/Lillith version but did not take the time to research where it came from so thank you for providing the name Stanislas.

The Oswald Wirth Baphomet also came before the Maurice Bessy one if I remember correctly.

Maurice Bessy's version first appeared on the cover of the book A Pictorial History Of Magic And The Supernatural. Initially, LaVey used that very book to set up the altar with. Likewise, if you look at any altar pictures from the Black House, eventually he had an altar piece made as an exact replica of the Bessy version.

The Bessy version got "cleaned up" a bit for the publishing of The Satanic Bible. Now, how that Gilmore and his company Hells Kitchen Production claims to have been the ones to "clean it up", I would have no idea since Gilmore had nothing to do with the CoS at the time of TSB publication. I have also seen a hand drawn variation by Anton Lavey. While based off of the Bessy version, it is apparent that he was also not the one who "cleaned up" the image. So, on that, my only guess could be that it was someone at Avon Books.  Having said that, the short answer to your question is no, LaVey didn't take anything away from the Stanislas version. Nor did he add or take anything away from the Bessy version. He simply used the Bessy version.

An interesting side note is that the book A Pictorial History Of Magic And The Supernatural makes no mention of Bessy's version. Did Bessy create it himself for the cover? Why were the names Sammael/Lillith taken out of the version on the cover? What is the explanation of it being on the cover? Bessy's book answers none of these questions. It is as though that the design is supposed to speak for itself.

On a final note concerning the copyright issue to the Sigil of Baphomet-Bessy version. The Church of Satan does not own copyright to it. You cannot copyright a religious symbol. It would be like Catholics trying to copyright a crucifix. My understanding is that they trademarked the design when in use with the words The Church of Satan, but even that would appear to be shaky. I know two distributors of Sigil of Baphomet medallions that are not CoS affiliated. I know that the CoS tried to take one of them to court and lost. I am not sure if they even tried to challenge the other one legally.

July 09, 2017, 11:39:25 am
Re: Bob Larson vs Zeena and Nikolas: the very little known round 2 Just a heads up to the OP, the youtube video that you posted appears to have been disabled.

That said, I have seen that video of Nikolas and Zeena when they were with the Temple of Set.

Part of where the CoS loses credibility IMO is how that they try to erase their history. Whenever a member is in good standing, they are praised and if they are ranked high enough their ass is to be kissed. However, once they leave, then the CoS makes them a taboo topic of discussion and no credit is to be given for their past contributions.

This happened with Dr. Aquino. It happened with Nikolas and Zeena, it happened with Diabolus Rex, and it happened with Boyd Rice among others.

A fair comparison would be: Say that you have a band. You write songs with a person in the band that becomes hits and tunes that the band is known for. But due to a creative difference, personal difference, or because your band mate simply wants to quit, you replace him and then denounce all of your former hits, never again play them, and chastise your fans for requesting them.

Not very smart, destroys credibility, seems dishonest.

July 09, 2017, 11:49:03 am
Introduction I have been a student of the occult for twenty-two years and on the LHP for eighteen of those years. I am very familiar with Lavey and Satanism. However, I really have never limited myself to being opened to other things.  I have done extensive research on the CoS and various members and in the end became dissatisfied with the lies and lack of ethics involved. During the last several years I have really began to focus on Dr. Aquino, Stephen Flowers, and Don Webb.  Of course, I am also familiar with Crowley.

All of that said, I feel that learning is a never ending process. If you are not learning something, you become stagnate. So, I was excited to see such a fledgling forum (having been around some of the others). I felt, ok this is an exiting step in a familiar but new direction, which I like.

I look forward to both learning new things as well as contributing knowledge when I can.

I am a pretty transparent person and I don't like hypocrisy.

I am always looking for ways to improve upon what I know and I thank those who put this forum together for giving this place.

July 09, 2017, 12:00:32 pm
Re: Introduction Thanks for the warm welcome. I am very excited to be along for the journey.
July 10, 2017, 12:51:08 am
Re: New Symbol You're very welcome. Anyone who would come here could see the hard work that has been put into this forum.  Any compliment to you would be well deserved.
July 10, 2017, 12:53:21 am
Re: The history of the Sigil of Baphomet Something a bit off topic, but may be of interest. One other thing that should be noted is that NO ONE within the CoS today owns copyright to The Satanic Bible. That was part of LaVey's estate that was split up between Karla, Zeena, and Dianne.
July 10, 2017, 12:56:13 am
Re: Introduction One thing that I should also ask was that in the Mission Statement, it made it seem as though that there is a difference between being a member of this forum and a member of the Order. Am I understanding this right? If so, how does one become a member if one chooses?
July 10, 2017, 01:52:58 am
Worship Of The State In the post, Is there an ideology outside the LHP which values the Self, Xepera maSet, brings up something that I feel is very important: Worship Of The State.

I figure that this is worthy of it's own thread and if deemed fit it can also be taken as a submission for the newsletter.

One time while I was researching Charles Manson, I saw a quote that really struck a chord with me. He said, "God is a green piece of paper with a dead president's face on it."

This really made sense to me. I then took it a few steps further, compared it with parts of Might Is Right, and added in my own observations as well, hence this essay.

If you go back to the time that the United States of America was founded, it is important to note that Christianity and mysticism were waning. As everyone knows, one of the reasons that we split off on our own was for religious freedom.  By the same token, if you look at Christianity or other "white light" religions, one of the main purposes is to attempt to keep people in line by frightening them of the possibilities after death. However, with people breaking away from that dogma, it wasn't quite as easy to scare them with Hell. A new religion was needed.

The founders of the U.S. were some pretty bright fellows. While on one hand they wanted to escape persecution, they also didn't want chaos to ensue. Something needed to be used to control the masses, but what? I can't help but think that they all grinned wickedly when they came across the thought that the best kept slaves are those who believe themselves to be free. Thus a new religion was formed. It was called the Government.

No religion would be complete without a God and a Holy Text.  God was easy enough. People need money to survive. As a result, people are devoted to money, can't get enough money, and under the right circumstance will do anything for money.  When those Christians in the fifties felt that they needed to put "In God We Trust" on money in hopes to somehow connect the church and state, little did they know how close to hitting the nail on the head that they came. The church was the state and had been since the country's inception.  So it only made sense that God would be officially named and sanctioned.  It is also interesting to note how that the founding fathers did not incorporate this from the beginning. Perhaps had they done so at that time, their secret would have been spoiled. Let it never be said that time and ignorance won't stop the masses from unknowingly spilling the beans.

Holy Text. This one must have presented a bit of a challenge. How could you create a religious text without making it seem like a religious text? Enter the Constitution.  Much like the Holy Bible, the Constitution offers both "gifts" and proper "punishments. Indeed, it is a rule book. However, the "gifts" that it offers are quite evasive. Take freedom of speech for instance. Anyone that is born with a mouth and a tongue, who can form words understood by his fellows to be language, has all the freedom of speech that he needs. A piece of paper does not wave a magic wand and give you that "right". All that pieces of paper and laws do is chip away at that thing that comes natural to you. Yet, look at the masses, who in fact BELIEVE the former and reject the latter. Like those faithful to Christianity, if they cannot believe it then the whole thing comes apart at the seems. Likewise, the Constitution provided the belief that people were free, hence, they became the best kept slaves.

After this, it becomes somewhat easy, at times pathetic, at times disgusting, and at times quite humorous to make the following comparisons.

The Pope=The President.

Reverends, Priests, and Ministers=Lower level politicians.

Denominations=Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, Tea Party, and all of the activists groups etc.

Collection plates and tithes=taxation and state sponsored charities as well as donations to all of the above denominations.

Door to door ministers=Campaign volunteers. 

The politician like the priest demands your blind faith and does not truly appreciate questions. Do a little test, take any well known politician and watch a stump speech. Do not watch the politician. Instead, watch the crowd. Notice the glazed over eyes of sheer belief and hope?  Next, watch any well known evangelical. Again, do not watch the speaker, watch the crowd. Notice any similarities?

Like their priestly brethren the politician lives in the lap of luxury while most of the congregation lives in squalor.

Hypocrisy seems to be a way of life for the priest and politician alike.

Anyone who does not believe in this religion of Government is considered a heretic. 

The Devil, of course is anyone who tempts people not to believe but to seek knowledge.

When people speak of separation of church and state, let it be known that they are parroting  something that the founding fathers likely had quite a chuckle with.

This is the Church of State.

July 10, 2017, 02:38:47 am
Re: Necromancy (serious) One book that would seem to have some information that you are looking for is Michelle Belanger's  Walking the Twilight Path: The Gothic Book of  The Dead. Though she also has other works that seem to be along these lines.

One thing that I would offer though, is what is truly the definition of death?

During a Communion that I once had with someone, who did not have hardly any friends at the time of his death. During the Communion, he almost seemed to be amazed and said, "I didn't know that it was possible to make friends after death."

I then replied, "If you are dead how are you communicating with me?"

He really seemed to think that one over. He also seemed a bit uneasy. He then said,"Hmmm. I didn't think of that."

He left and I have never had another communication with him since.

My point here is that if you are communicating with anyone and they with you can you truly say that they are dead?

Likewise, if someone was dead or indeed Death, how would you communicate with it?

So to the original question: What is death?

July 10, 2017, 03:05:42 am